In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
smb/client: handle overlapping allocated ranges in fallocate
smb3_simple_fallocate_range() can skip holes when an allocated range
returned by the server starts before the current fallocate offset. The
skipped hole is not zero-filled, but fallocate still returns success. A
later write to that hole may therefore fail with ENOSPC.
The function queries allocated ranges so that it can preserve existing
contents and write zeroes only into holes. However, the server may return
a range that starts before the current fallocate offset.
For example, assume the fallocate request is [100, 400) and the only
allocated range returned by the server is [0, 200):
Request: [100, 400)
Server range: [ 0, 200) allocated
Correct:
[100, 200) allocated data, skip
[200, 400) hole, zero-fill
Current:
[100, 300) skipped
[300, 400) zero-filled afterwards
The current code adds the full server range length, 200, to the current
offset 100 and moves to 300. As a result, the hole in [200, 300) is
skipped without being zero-filled.
Fix this by advancing only over the part of the allocated range that
overlaps the current fallocate offset. Ignore ranges that end before the
current offset and reject ranges whose end offset overflows.
This also prevents a malformed range length from causing an out-of-bounds
zero-buffer read.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it